New Jersey has now extended its voting deadline for those submitting ballots via e-mail and fax to 8 pm Eastern on Friday. In the wake of Hurricane Sandy, state officials allowed those displaced to request a ballot by fax or e-mail and then submit back the same way. However, voters had to request their e-mailed or faxed ballot by 5 pm Eastern on Tuesday, a deadline that has just now passed.

State media reported that Lt. Gov. Kim Guadagno announced the extension for ballot submissions on Tuesday afternoon. County officials now are required to process the ballot requests by 12 pm local time on Friday, and voters must submit their completed ballots by 8 pm.

"Today's been a crazy day," Robert Pantina, County Clerk John Hogan's chief of staff, told NJ.com. "With the electronic application requests, it's been well over a thousand."

As we reported earlier today, the official address to request a ballot in Bergen County, the state’s largest, just outside New York City, was overloaded. As a backup, New Jersey officials told residents to use cj_durkin@hotmail.com, the county clerks’ personal email address. Not surprisingly, many computer science experts (and us here at Ars) are a bit surprised that officials would accept notoriously insecure e-mail as a valid means of submitting ballots—even given Sandy’s destructive consequences.

Still, Gov. Chris Christie had stern words for his state’s electorate: "If you haven’t been displaced by the storm, get your butt up and go vote at your polling place," he told The Record. "This is not a convenience thing."

Cyrus Farivar
Cyrus is a Senior Tech Policy Reporter at Ars Technica, and is also a radio producer and author. His latest book, Habeas Data, about the legal cases over the last 50 years that have had an outsized impact on surveillance and privacy law in America, is due out in May 2018 from Melville House. He is based in Oakland, California. Emailcyrus.farivar@arstechnica.com//Twitter@cfarivar

Still, Gov. Chris Christie had stern words for his state’s electorate: "If you haven’t been displaced by the storm, get your butt up and go vote at your polling place," he told The Record. "This is not a convenience thing."

It obviously shows that it is a convenience thing. Real internet voting (not this half-assed emergency version) needs to come sooner rather than later.

I don't see how this can be legal. Voting by email means that your vote can be proven to a third party. Which means it can be bought, coerced, etc. I understand this is an exceptional situation, but couldn't it be remedied without violating voting privacy laws?

This policy along with New York's allowing displaced voters to vote in any district is going to be a nightmare. People better be prepared for this election to be worse than the 2004 & 2008 messes. Instead of hanging chads we're going to have displaced voter problems.

Still, Gov. Chris Christie had stern words for his state’s electorate: "If you haven’t been displaced by the storm, get your butt up and go vote at your polling place," he told The Record. "This is not a convenience thing."

It obviously shows that it is a convenience thing. Real internet voting (not this half-assed emergency version) needs to come sooner rather than later.

Hurricanes are more than just inconvenient. They cause lots of damage to homes, businesses, roads and infrastructure. I imagine that millions are working hard right now just trying to recover. Essentials come first, in cases like this, I find it hard to prioritize acquiring the necessities of life and and patching your home in preparation for the next storm below voting. But that's just me I guess.

This policy along with New York's allowing displaced voters to vote in any district is going to be a nightmare. People better be prepared for this election to be worse than the 2004 & 2008 messes. Instead of hanging chads we're going to have displaced voter problems.

It will only matter if neither candidate has totaled 270 electoral college votes excluding New York and New Jersey.

This policy along with New York's allowing displaced voters to vote in any district is going to be a nightmare. People better be prepared for this election to be worse than the 2004 & 2008 messes. Instead of hanging chads we're going to have displaced voter problems.

It will only matter if neither candidate has totaled 270 electoral college votes excluding New York and New Jersey.

NY and NJ are solidly safe Democrat states - Obama's majorities in 2008 were 1mil+ and 600k respectively. Any fraud or incorrect counting is going to have to occur on a massive scale to alter the result. But if this mess had happened in Florida we'd be guaranteed a debacle that would make 2000 look like a picnic.

When to close the polls and stop accepting votes is entirely up to the states. What day to open the polls is a decision by Congress.

NJ just has to decide on their electors for the Electoral College by... Dec 17th?

AFAIU your system, the electors aren't even tied to candidates by federal law. So they could just choose some people now and have another quick election (that the already-chosen electors would respect) before the deadline, if they really wanted.

When to close the polls and stop accepting votes is entirely up to the states. What day to open the polls is a decision by Congress.

NJ just has to decide on their electors for the Electoral College by... Dec 17th?

AFAIU your system, the electors aren't even tied to candidates by federal law. So they could just choose some people now and have another quick election (that the already-chosen electors would respect) before the deadline, if they really wanted.

What's really scary about the Electoral College method is that theoretically the electors could ignore the popular vote of a particular state altogether and throw all the votes in with the other nominee(s). As I have argued (in vain because of all the international posters invading those forums) on the Economist forums, moving to making the Electoral College votes be distributed on a proportional basis per the popular vote makes much more sense in this era than it did 200 years ago.

Still, Gov. Chris Christie had stern words for his state’s electorate: "If you haven’t been displaced by the storm, get your butt up and go vote at your polling place," he told The Record. "This is not a convenience thing."

It obviously shows that it is a convenience thing. Real internet voting (not this half-assed emergency version) needs to come sooner rather than later.

It can't, and it won't, for an entire littany of reasons, and it's not limited just to data security or fraud prevention. It mostly won't be done because it provides incentive for direct voter abuse and coercion. Its for these reasons it's against the law to take your ballot from the polling place and/or photograph it after voting.

I don't see how this can be legal. Voting by email means that your vote can be proven to a third party. Which means it can be bought, coerced, etc. I understand this is an exceptional situation, but couldn't it be remedied without violating voting privacy laws?

I can already sell my vote at will. In 2008 people were doing it online in drives in states that were shoe-ins for presidency but close on house/senate seat races. If I want someone else to vote in my stead, or to vote on their behalf, no system can prevent that. That is not the risk.

Ther risk is allowing PROOF of voting, so that you can't lie to someone forcing you through some measure of pressure to vote THEIR will. Any form of internet based system can do that so long as a screen capture can be taken, even if it requires a photogrtaph of the screen. This is why taking pictures in voting areas is illegal.

This was pretty much guaranteed to be a clusterfuck, with such short notice and little preparation.

Regardless, it does highlight the need for real internet voting. If we pay billions of dollars collectively when we e-file our taxes, we can certainly come up with a system to vote online.

No, we can't come up with a system. It's impossible to secure to start with, then you run into the issue of spouses voting for each other or for people, but by far the most important issue is voter ABUSE, not fraud. Employers or teachers demanding proof of vote for a certain candidate for reward or threat of punishment is in fact a real issue. Spouses demanding their partner vote the will of the dominant household member instead of their independent wills, any time you have the ability for someone to complete a poll and end up with proof of their voting record you open the possibility for this type of abuse, it is the standing reason nearly every state outlaws photography as well as copying or taking voter cards from the poll. This cannot be secured online in any way.

Now, I will, whole heatedly, support voting kiosks in public places used over an extended period of days or even weeks to make the process significantly more convenient, but those locations need to be manned and monitored and ensure that voting is done in private, and that the screen can't be captured or photographed, and that ID of the voter is confirmed (simply face, name, signature and voter card is good enough)

This was pretty much guaranteed to be a clusterfuck, with such short notice and little preparation.

Regardless, it does highlight the need for real internet voting. If we pay billions of dollars collectively when we e-file our taxes, we can certainly come up with a system to vote online.

No, we can't come up with a system. It's impossible to secure to start with, then you run into the issue of spouses voting for each other or for people, but by far the most important issue is voter ABUSE, not fraud. Employers or teachers demanding proof of vote for a certain candidate for reward or threat of punishment is in fact a real issue. Spouses demanding their partner vote the will of the dominant household member instead of their independent wills, any time you have the ability for someone to complete a poll and end up with proof of their voting record you open the possibility for this type of abuse, it is the standing reason nearly every state outlaws photography as well as copying or taking voter cards from the poll. This cannot be secured online in any way.

Now, I will, whole heatedly, support voting kiosks in public places used over an extended period of days or even weeks to make the process significantly more convenient, but those locations need to be manned and monitored and ensure that voting is done in private, and that the screen can't be captured or photographed, and that ID of the voter is confirmed (simply face, name, signature and voter card is good enough)

Electronic voting of any kind (Internet or Kiosk) is not feasible currently. THis is just a problem waiting to happen.

And the saying "just because we can do something does mean we should" keeps coming to the surface.

Until they ramp up the security protocols for the Internet and we are not reading in the news how this company or that bank or this institution is getting breached and someone is dumping millions of peoples information out for the world to see - then why do you all think that Internet voting wil not be compromised int he same fashion ??

Polls are closing in 5 minutes - Obama is leading Romney 269 to 108 - they need to reach 270 - oh wait the polls are closed and Romney wins 400 to 1 - wow what a come back. All because some hacker group could access the Internet / kiosk voting using out-dated and inefficient security measures that are the defacto standard for anything online.

It can't, and it won't, for an entire littany of reasons, and it's not limited just to data security or fraud prevention. It mostly won't be done because it provides incentive for direct voter abuse and coercion. Its for these reasons it's against the law to take your ballot from the polling place and/or photograph it after voting.

That's just denying reality. There's no more likelyhood of voter coercion with internet based votes than there is from mail, or even in person for that matter. Don't let made-up fears dictate progress. Making people stand in lines for hours and hours is absurd in 2012, and only provides a false sense of security and legitimacy. Large scale voter fraud has never been an issue in the US, and I can't see it becoming one in the future.

Quote:

So with these NJ folks voting all week - does that mean there's a chance that Romney might have to take back his conncession speech this weekend ?

No.

Quote:

Otherwise - what is the point of letting these folks continue to vote ?

Because the presidential race is only a very small part of the election. All the regional and local candidates and issues still have to be decided.

This policy along with New York's allowing displaced voters to vote in any district is going to be a nightmare. People better be prepared for this election to be worse than the 2004 & 2008 messes. Instead of hanging chads we're going to have displaced voter problems.

It will only matter if neither candidate has totaled 270 electoral college votes excluding New York and New Jersey.

NY and NJ are solidly safe Democrat states - Obama's majorities in 2008 were 1mil+ and 600k respectively. Any fraud or incorrect counting is going to have to occur on a massive scale to alter the result.

That was pretty much my point. New York and New Jersey's Electoral College votes were expected to go to Obama; only if the votes in other states fell such that NY or NJ were potential deciders would that historically assumed fact come under contention (from the Romney camp).

charleski wrote:

But if this mess had happened in Florida we'd be guaranteed a debacle that would make 2000 look like a picnic.

There seems to be so much trouble every election in the USA. Have you considered to look how other countries manage to handle election day without huge lines and faulty voting mashines?I'm sorry if i come of as a little snarky, it's not my intention to be, it is a honest question. Many developing countries handles this better, it's been a recurring problem, yet nothing seems to be done to make it run smoother. I'm not referring spefifically to the situation in NJ, it seems to be chaos even without any natural disaster complicating things. Just to compare, i live in Sweden. The voting process took about 3 minutes, including waiting in line. I fill in the form in a booth, put it in an envelope, I show my voting card and a valid id to the controllers, they check their list to confirm i'm on it and put my envelope in a sealed box. The voting card gets sent to me by mail, already prepared for an eventual vote by mail if i so desire, and many do vote by mail. No fuzz, no faulty machines, no huge lines, like most other countries. Cheers

Voting extended until Friday, Obama already declared winner nationally as well as in NJ. Explain to me how every vote counts?

The president is elected per the Electoral College. He doesn't have to win the popular vote. If the majority in any given state vote for a candidate, the states EC representatives are expected to vote accordingly (though there's the potential for doing otherwise, but it's almost never happened AFAIK.)

Every vote counts, however, because there are local ballots as well - Senate and House races, propositions, state assembly, city councils, etc.

I don't see how this can be legal. Voting by email means that your vote can be proven to a third party. Which means it can be bought, coerced, etc. I understand this is an exceptional situation, but couldn't it be remedied without violating voting privacy laws?

I can already sell my vote at will. In 2008 people were doing it online in drives in states that were shoe-ins for presidency but close on house/senate seat races. If I want someone else to vote in my stead, or to vote on their behalf, no system can prevent that. That is not the risk.

Ther risk is allowing PROOF of voting, so that you can't lie to someone forcing you through some measure of pressure to vote THEIR will. Any form of internet based system can do that so long as a screen capture can be taken, even if it requires a photogrtaph of the screen. This is why taking pictures in voting areas is illegal.

The fallacy with this justification is that there is a means to vote and document that vote: absentee ballots. I've been voting absentee for decades now (military then as disabled). Already absentee votes are on a significant increase and, frankly, proving coercion would be hard since most absentee votes are not even tallied unless there is a statistical likelihood of effecting the results (which measure I as well as other statisticians find suspect already). True, also, coercion would have to be maintained until after the election. Whatever, there are problems with the system, but this rational is no more valid than any other in my not so humble opinion. I'm of the mind that security will be impossible to maintain, period, as any regimen that anyone can come invent, someone will come along and circumvent. [Which also goes to the above.]

Haven't been around for awhile as I am "displaced". A few answers though:

-It's technically Friday and I have not received my ballot and secrecy waver yet, nor any confirmation from the morris county board of elections.-I still wish to vote in the local races, one of which is very close and will likely trigger a recount.-Someone mentioned something about these votes not being "secret" and therefore not legal, that's not quite true as you are required to return a secrecy waver with your ballot.-While the whole thing sounds scary, it is not too horrible - 2000+ in my county where they have to verify that those asking for ballots have not already voted.

I'm curious if the deadline will be extended again, as by now I'd at least expect a confirmation that the request for a ballot was received...